Ok, lets perhaps, hopefully look at the issue from another angle,

Not not if homosexuality is right or wrong, we each have a strong opinion on that.

But it is a fact in the US, that homosexuals are couples, they are living together. In most states ( if not all) they can adopt, some places offer domestic relationships. So we in effect have homosexual families, many having been so for 10 plus years ( I know some longer)

So can we discuss this from less a moral issue ( Ok I left it under religious since no one much goes to the other discussion boards) and more of a legal standpoint

But it is obvious that they are here, so should they be given the same ability that male/female couples have as to inheritance, taxes, discounts and to be allowed to have a marriage license.


and if you want, lets throw in plural marriage,
Since it is the behavior I disagree with, and as long as my right to preach against the behavior is protected, I can be on my soap box.

So without discussing the moral side of the issue, as we did in the one post, is there a legal reason, not to allow it.

I will address this from a states right view point and the will of the people,

Credendovidis

Heeeeh : what has George W to do with this all ?
But you got me thinking : there are indeed similarities between his level of thinking/argumentation and that by SasT and DeM ....



·

Synnen

What would you call it then? And how would you differentiate?

So...ONLY marriages sanctioned by the church would be called "marriage", and the rest "civil unions"?

How about the fact that my religion has no problem with same sex marriage, and would "marry" homosexuals....would they then have the right to call it "marriage", since it was performed by a church? And then--would those couples who got married in the courthouse, in a civil ceremony--would they be called "civil unions" with "partners" instead of "husbands" and "wives", regardless of the genders of those involved in the civil union?

In other words--if the only difference is whether or not it's done in a church, then it should be the SAME for all "church marriages" and all "civil unions". Anything else would be discrimination.

Synnen

But I bet you found a church that would do it, right? Either that, or you had a courthouse wedding---a "civil union". How would you like it if you couldn't get all the rights and privileges you GET for being married--including other people respecting that institution (how many married men/women have been able to tell someone hitting on them to buzz off because they were married, and therefore not interested?)--were denied to you simply because you had to get married in a courthouse, and therefore couldn't call it marriage?

It just seems like a double standard for me. I have no problem with respecting the church's right not to recognize those marriages, or perform the marriage ceremony for anyone at all they don't feel should be "blessed" with the sanctity of marriage. What I have a problem with is that there ARE religions willing to perform and recognize those ceremonies, but are not allowed to because of civil laws.

If the state said that NO divorced person could get married because there were a lot of churches out there that don't beleive that divorced people can get married--how would you feel about that?

I'm not belittling your marriage at all--please understand that I'm just pointing out that your marriage is a perfect example of why the church definition of marriage and the state definition--at least as far as who is allowed to be married--differ.

Synnen

Your cat can not give consent.

Homosexual couples ARE able to give consent to each other. Same with polygamous marriages.

"Consenting Adults" is a pretty important phrase to keep in mind here.